Originally posted by slammin.e28guy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OFFICIAL Land Rover thread.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by quickervicar View PostI'm with you on the wiped cam lobes and bad electrical systems, but I'm not familiar with crankshafts flying out of the bottom end. And IMHO Rover cooling systems are quite good. (perhaps too good) It's the head gaskets and occasional leaky (aftermarket) water pump that seem to cause the trouble.
The cooling system issues may be more a result of owner negligence, as evidenced more on the Disco 1/2 head gasket failures.
The 12-14mpg of the RRC really makes it hard to envision using it for a skiing/cabin visiting vehicle.
I've been eying 4Runners and LC80's recently as an alternative. The LC's mpg is about as miserable. The 4Runner as least is half decent... almost as good as my Cherokee 4.0L (16-18mpg).Below the radar...
Comment
-
Originally posted by 5ickride View PostI'm bailing out of the RRC. Nothing wrong with it, just a mofo on gas. Looking at something similar, ie rugged, like an FJ80 or a 2000+ Tahoe. Wifey is going to kill me!1985 M10b18. 70maybewhpoffury. Over engineered S50b30 murica BBQ swap in progress.
Originally posted by DEV0 E30You'd chugg this butt. I know you would. Ain't gotta' lie to kick it brostantinople.
Comment
-
Originally posted by UNHCLL View PostSnapped cranks are the #1 cause of 4.2L motors going to the scrap yard.
The cooling system issues may be more a result of owner negligence, as evidenced more on the Disco 1/2 head gasket failures.
The 12-14mpg of the RRC really makes it hard to envision using it for a skiing/cabin visiting vehicle.
I've been eying 4Runners and LC80's recently as an alternative. The LC's mpg is about as miserable. The 4Runner as least is half decent... almost as good as my Cherokee 4.0L (16-18mpg).
Careful with the 4Runners. Check for frame rot and bushing wear. LCs are nice, but the mileage figures will be a wash.
Comment
-
I read too the LWBs with the 4.2 got better MPG than the 3.9 in the SWB.
I unno, lol.
I replaced the brake piping on mine last night. The old stuff literally fell apart in my hands (this is the metal pipe, not the flexible lines). Took a half day at work but had this done in about an hour, including running to the store to get the lines.
I love working on these beasts.1974.5 Jensen Healey : 2003 330i/5
Comment
-
Originally posted by Holland View PostAn 80 series cruiser will get the same mileage. A 3FE potentially worse.
Originally posted by quickervicar View PostThe 4.2L was only available on the RRC LWB in the early '90s, IIRC. Far more documented issues with the 4.0 & 4.6 liners slipping than crank issues on the 4.2. In fact, a lot of guys prefer basing a performance build off the 4.2 over the 4.6
Careful with the 4Runners. Check for frame rot and bushing wear. LCs are nice, but the mileage figures will be a wash.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 5ickride View PostDamn, didnt know that. I thought they were better on gas but never confirmed it. I'll check the factory specs. What's "3FE"? Is that the chassis code for Tahoe 2000-2006? Thanks
I was dead set on a cruiser until I realized the one I wanted is out of my budget. So I bought my Disco, which is in my budget.1985 M10b18. 70maybewhpoffury. Over engineered S50b30 murica BBQ swap in progress.
Originally posted by DEV0 E30You'd chugg this butt. I know you would. Ain't gotta' lie to kick it brostantinople.
Comment
-
So, after replacing the line, I put fluid in it and was going to bleed it but it got dark and cold and I never got around to it. I went out the next day to do it and BAM! It ate all the fluid. A whole quart....gone! SRSLY?
I didn't see any (obvious) leaks. I'm like RVR PLS. I'm betting the assholeistic valve body, pump and everything is empty.
I'd love to find a way to ditch that booster system and run either hydro like in an e28 or normal vacuum boosted. Thoughts?1974.5 Jensen Healey : 2003 330i/5
Comment
Comment